Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday July 05, 2013 @02:08PM
from the recruitment-unsuccessful dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian is running a story about a recent recruitment session held by the NSA and attended by students from the University of Wisconsin which had an unexpected outcome for the recruiters. 'Attending the session was Madiha R Tahir, a journalist studying a language course at the university. She asked the squirming recruiters a few uncomfortable questions about the activities of NSA: which countries the agency considers to be 'adversaries', and if being a good liar is a qualification for getting a job at the NSA.' Following her, others students started to put NSA employees under fire too. A recording of the session is available on Tahir's blog."

The normal rule of gunnery is to shoot, and then whatever you happen to hit: call that the target.;-) With terrorism, whoever you missed is the target. And whoever you hit, is your weapon against that target. But in order to work, it requires the cooperation of the target. If the target does not choose to react fearfully, then the terrorism does not accomplish its objective.

Does the same thing apply to carjacking? Armed robbery?

No. The goal of carjacking is to get a ride; the goal of robbery is to obtain value. Deciding to not fear it, does not deny your adversary his goal.

But terrorism is about persuading the survivors, the technically-not-victims. Nobody ever carjacks in order to get the next car to lock their doors. Nobody commits armed robbery in order to manipulate a third party (movie script counter-example: Die Hard, but the FBI was manipulated as part of a "Briar Patch" strategy, rather than terrorism(*)).

e.g. Not Terrorism: "Your tank factory and its workers are gone. This gains me a numeric advantage in next month's tank battle." Terrorism: "Your tank factory and its workers are gone. Surrender or else I'll wreck more of your expensive factories and kill more of your workers."

(*) Does this happen in real life? What believed acts of terrorism were actually not?

The problem with your bad attempt at an analogy is that none of those crimes really represent anything personal. The kinds of people that commit those crimes don't care who their victim are. Even a rapist doesn't have any strong preference. It's not personal.

Uh no, not always. About 30% of the time they're targeted attacks for car jacking. Armed robbery is almost always a targeted attack, with the person checking out several locations and picking one. Rape about 70% in all cases the person knows who attacked them. And in all cases it *is* personal, that's the thing with rape and a graduated crime. It's the same with psychopathic killers. It is personal, and they've graduated from a lower series of criminal acts to the point at which they're at.

Terrorism on the other hand can be both personal and impersonal. Sometimes terrorists are out to kill *insert religious branch here* or *kill people of x society.* In other cases they meticulously target and select exactly who they're going after and where.

Usually outside the country. I like Al-Jazeera as they might hate the US but at least it's not partisan. Especially since both sides are corrupt and neither side can see their party has gone bad.BBC is ok too but they don't want to anger the homeland.

The NSA only participates in activities governed by Congress, President and the Courts. If you don't like the NSA, then stop voting for the Congress (R congress, D Senate), the President (D) and those that appointed the Supreme Court.

Congress is already out of the picture if the NSA gets away with lying to them.

Having worked at several of the big-5 agencies (NSA included) I can attest to the fact that their HR organizations are pretty inept. They are so focused on EO and diversity that they really have no staff who know the trade craft that they are recruiting against nor even people who can simply think on their feet. For a potential recruit to act in any way other than honored to be speaking to a recruiter in the intelligence community and awestruck at the very thought of getting said job would totally derail them. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall.

Look at the people in the Guardian's photo: they hold up a sign of Snowden, write "HERO" across it, and then use the Obama logo for the "O"? How stupid and partisan can you get? Not only is Obama fully responsible for the current NSA actions and keeping them secret, he lied during his campaign when he promised to end such abuses.

a sign of Snowden, write "HERO" across it, and then use the Obama logo for the "O"? How stupid and partisan can you get?

I dunno, how stupid and partisan can you get?

It is so obviously a dig at Obama that I would have thought it impossible to misunderstand. How much of a rabid Obama hater do you have to be to see it as endorsement of Obama's policies? Even the love child of Glenn Beck and Michael Savage would still be able to figure it out.

But which is worse? The President that started the program, or the President elected to replace him who ran on a platform calling for change and dismantling of such programs only to continue and expand upon it?

But which is worse? The President that started the program, or the President elected to replace him who ran on a platform calling for change and dismantling of such programs only to continue and expand upon it?

Look, I think Obama is a disingenuous douchebag, but my answer can only be the president who started the program. It's a lot easier to not do something than to do something. It's a lot harder to stop something with momentum than to give it the initial push. Once a program exists, it tends to take on a life of its own.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't really matter which is worse. Once you have established that you have a Bad President, whether he's the worst or not is really only of interest to historians and

A recent article in CNN outlines why there is little in the US Media regarding Eric Snowden and the NSA Prism program--the NSA is literally threatening journalists with prosecution for espionage for doing their jobs.

We are sliding down that slippery slope fast, folks. I honestly feel the next few months will determine whether or not our Constitution remains viable as a means to protect basic human rights. Help the press help us--tell as many people as you can about this article and the serious repercussions the article outlines. These are not potential repercussions--this is happening folks. A near-complete lack of articles in main-stream media about the Prism program and Snowden is all the evidence I need to come to that conclusion.

-the NSA is literally threatening journalists with prosecution for espionage for doing their jobs.

That is not "freedom of the press" - that is distributing classified information. Do you know how many reporters spend time in jail for refusing to identify a source? They have freedom, but they are not immune to prosecution.

Just like Rosa Parks did, Snowden broke the law. He is going to be punished, and anyone who keeps spreading the information and is also under the jurisdiction of federal prosecution will

Seriously, everyone go listen to the recording. That is some hardcore, no bullshit Q&A. Er, well, the Q's were. The NSA stooges spent the whole time beating around the bush and using their native tongue of Orwellian doublespeak with every non-answer they gave.

What utter bullshit. You can't be a "nation of laws" when the laws apply differently to different subsets of the nation, when you're not allowed to know how the law works, and when those enforcing the law are above it.

If you want to keep sucking off your jackbooted masters, you'll need a new sound bite to try to excuse it. That one stopped working decades ago.

We are a nation of laws, sure... Secret laws overseen by secret courts who round up people and hold them in secret prisons. Hard to be proud of these laws.

A functioning democracy needs the voters to be sufficiently aware of what their elected officials are doing to be able to be informed voters. Adopting an attitude of only sharing with the country what you have to, instead of only hiding what you have to undermines the whole logical argument supporting the concept of a self governing populace.

Theoretically, even Kings are not above the law in the anglo-saxon tradition. What you are seeing right now is frustration being vented over the fact that highly placed public officials seem to be above the law.

If this were France, they might be setting your car on fire right about now.

I am Canadian, but we have the same basic system. There are systems and laws in place to stop you from even just learning one law.Unless you go to school and become a lawyer you cannot know the law, or what will get you arrested. And only then, will you have a best guess at a probability of getting arrested. Alternatively, if you have enough money to own a lawyer, you can also be generally safe, as you can ask their advise before doing anything.

I once tried to learn knife laws in Canada. We only have about 5 laws, maybe 100 words of laws concerning knives.But our systems are built on precedent, and really how much you can afford to spend on a lawyer.So there will be literally be hundreds of books law precedent, which is more important than the letter, to read with respect to knife law. And unless you can afford it, their is absolutely no talking to a lawyer before you are arrested.

What I got out of this.From my understanding, after reading the letter of the law over and over again is that technically I am allowed to do pretty much anything (carry any knife I would care to own anywhere in any way). And if I could afford a team of lawyers, I am pretty confident that I could protect that right. But in the real world were I do not own a cent, I absolutely should not even carry a Walmart pocket knife across the street to cut up a bunch of boxes. Because people have ended up going to jail for less.

You cannot know the law, because the real law is hidden (non lawyers are not allowed to give law advise, and lawyer cost too much). And even lawyers and the police do not know the law. it is all interpretable to mean anything that they want it to mean.

The amount of stupidity in your post is too high. Why the hell are you not allowed to know how the law works? The law is public. You're just too lazy to study it.

To actually study and know all the laws that apply to you living in the US of today would require more than just not being lazy, it would require a full-time staff, at least. Even the so-called "representatives" voting on the laws don't have the time to study and understand them. And even if you could get to that point of knowing all the "public" laws (not to mention the ones you have to pay a license fee to even read, or the ones that are kept secret for "national security"), the amount of machinations you would have to go through to not break any of them would be outside the realm of feasibility. At times you will find yourself in a catch-22 where one law says you must do A, and another says you are not allowed to do A. Did you know if you toss out a piece of junk mail addressed to someone else you could be charged with a felony that carries 5 years in jail time? That law exists in spite of the fact that the post office cannot forward that mail anyway.

Harvey Silverglate estimates that the typical American unwittingly commits three felonies a day [kottke.org], and he backs it up very well. This is the infrastructure that police states are built upon. You don't need to look for crimes, you just pick someone and find some laws to charge them with violating.

relates to your point; from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement [wikipedia.org]---Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose.[citation needed] Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.

However, the converse can also be true. Police officer discretion is sometimes warranted for minor offenses,[citation needed] for instance where a warning to a teenager could be quite effective without putting the teen through a legal process and also reduces costs of governmental legal resources. Another example is patrol officers parked on the side of a highway for speed enforcement. It may be impractical and cost prohibitive to ticket everyone who is going any amount over the speed limit, so the officer should watch for the more egregious cases and those drivers who are showing signs of driving recklessly.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),[1] was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I am Canadian, but we have the same basic system. There are systems and laws in place to stop you from even just learning one law.Unless you go to school and become a lawyer you cannot know the law, or what will get you arrested. And only then, will you have a best guess at a probability of getting arrested. Alternatively, if you have enough money to own a lawyer, you can also be generally safe, as you can ask their advise before doing anything.

I once tried to learn knife laws in Canada. We only have about 5 laws, maybe 100 words of laws concerning knives.But our systems are built on precedent, and really how much you can afford to spend on a lawyer.So there will be literally be hundreds of books law precedent, which is more important than the letter, to read with respect to knife law. And unless you can afford it, their is absolutely no talking to a lawyer before you are arrested.

What I got out of this.From my understanding, after reading the letter of the law over and over again is that technically I am allowed to do pretty much anything (carry any knife I would care to own anywhere in any way). And if I could afford a team of lawyers, I am pretty confident that I could protect that right. But in the real world were I do not own a cent, I absolutely should not even carry a Walmart pocket knife across the street to cut up a bunch of boxes. Because people have ended up going to jail for less.

You cannot know the law, because the real law is hidden (non lawyers are not allowed to give law advise, and lawyer cost too much). And even lawyers and the police do not know the law. it is all interpretable to mean anything that they want it to mean.

We have the Bill of Rights which include some things like the 4th amendment. Things that would prevent the majority from taking advantage of the minority. Too bad the Bill of Rights has been suspended.

Lol! Really? So when is James Clapper going to be charged with contempt of congress for telling them that the NSA isn't spying on millions of Americans? When are the people in the previous administration going to be held responsible for ordering torture - also a felony? We ceased being a nation of laws a while ago.

We are a nation of laws, not men. If you don't agree with the actions of a governmental organization then you need to lobby your governmental representatives with your views.

You also need to accept that your views might not be the majority and that, to some extent, we're a country of majority rule.

Freedom does not depend on majority rule. In fact, it frequently stands against it. That's what the "tyranny of the majority" means.

Desegregation was unpopular. Interracial marriage was unpopular. Letting groups like the KKK and Communists have speak their minds was unpopular. Burning draft cards was unpopular, and burning the flag in protest still is. Keeping church out of state is unpopular. The right to marry whoever and however many people you want is unpopular.

Interring Japanese and German citizens during WW2 was popular. Laws requiring everyone to salute the flag regardless of minority religious belief were (and still are) popular. Prohibition was popular -- at first. Racially restrictive housing covenants were popular in the communities that "benefited" from them.

If polls today show that a slim majority support the NSA spying on us, then remember that equivalent numbers sat out the revolutionary war or actively aided the British. The majority is not always right. The majority does not always stand for real freedom -- all they want is the freedom to keep living their narrowly-focused, myopic lives in the same day to day way that they currently do, and to hell with everyone else.

I think most Americans would gladly vote in a dictator if that dictator established that everyone had to live the way that they think people should, if they called it the "freedom" to do so. History is filled with peoples who chose to do just that.

The Stasi secret police were in effect Communist activists suppressing speech, religion, political opposition, political organization, and anything else that was deemed opposition to the communist one-party regime. They were an instrument of totalitarian rule.

These are people doing a job. You might not like it, but don't start attacking them.

I'm sorry, are you serious? "Doing a job"? And they are recruiting people who will be "just doing their job" in the field of domestic spying. Also, if you are interested in "cops just doing their jobs", consider that Seattle is currently under a Consent Decree with the DOJ for "just doing their job". Maybe *YOU* sould apply to the NSA to âoejust do your jobâ.

Thats funny they taught us in the military that it was our personal responsibility to refuse to follow an unlawful order. The whole "I was just following orders" routine didn't work at Nuremberg, and should not work here. I just wish the other government agencies held that belief.

No, they are government employees, which according to our HIGHEST LAWS means they answer to US the PEOPLE. If they can't handle people asking them some hard questions, then it's a good chance they know that they are doing things they shouldn't.

Now no one beat them up, no one attacked them. But these "recruiters" jobs is to spread propaganda, and it's about time people started calling them out on it.

And yes physically attacking a cop just because they're a cop is a horrible idea. But asking a cop to abide by their OATH to Protect and Serve, and calling them out on it verbally when the police office they work in is breaking the law? There's nothing wrong with that, as perhaps they shouldn't let their fellow officers break the law in the first place.

Those that hold themselves up over others as authorities, or as law, should also be held to the strictest standards.

Have you actually listened to it? No one attacked them. They asked them some very pointed questions, but even the pointed questions were generally in reference to what they said (while referencing what is now known because of the leaks). When they ask about which countries were "adversaries" it was because they said they analyzed the communications of "adversaries". So she asked what they considered adversaries, since we know they analyze the communications of our allies. A lot of hard questions were asked, but no one attacked them just because they worked at the NSA.

The recruiters were there to offer jobs to people, not to answer for every controversy involving the agency. It isn't their job, and it isn't especially reasonable. Do you harass sales clerks about sweat shop labor used to manufacture some particular good in their store? This isn't much different.

Isn't it the job of prospective employees to ask questions about their potential employer? I know that if I were to work for the NSA again I would probably ask far better questions than the first time around...

You come on. They had to face pointed questions. Boo fucking hoo. If my employer, a hospital, started executing patients they had sworn to heal, I'd expect some questions even though I do research, and the only time I see patients is when they're walking into the building across the street. The NSA is supposed to exist to defend us and our rights, and did the exact opposite. They can fucking deal with the fallout or they can quit. Their bosses and directing politicians caused the problem, not the people who are trying to get answers.

I have no problem with good cops, which is the vast majority of them. I do have a problem with bad cops that don't follow the law. And good cops that are great at their job but aren't any good at recruiting shouldn't be doing recruiting.

In this case, yes, these people are just doing a job -- recruiting. That's a tough job. However, before expecting to recruit (hopefully) the brightest students in the country, they might want to have really good answers for questions that an awful lot of the ordinary peo

So you are comparing a private hate group opposed to blacks, Jews, gays, Catholics, immigrants, and who knows what else to an agency of the US government that no doubt celebrates all the usual diversity related holidays and recruits people with diverse backgrounds?

So we have government agency working to prevent surprise attacks by enemy nations

Enemy nations? Since when? Looks to me like 99% of their work is to turn our own country into an Orwellian dystopia while also allowing our allies along for the ride. I'm guessing they consider actual enemies too boring. Besides monitoring them requires some foreign language ability. So much easier to spy on English speakers.

She probably is a US citizen, and even if not, she would have something to contribute if she became one. Strangely enough, the US consists of people whose heritage is from all over the world. It's one of the strengths of the country that it can draw on that cultural heritage and diversity within its own citizens to better understand languages and other cultural matters when in pursuit of intelligence in other countries. A country with a more homogeneous population has a big problem trying to understand the rest of the world. Your bigoted attitude will discourage people from getting involved, and ultimately undermines the security of the country.

They answered the question. Did you LTFA? She just came off as some brat who was taking advantage of their situation to vent her misguided anger. Do you think the NSA acts on their own accord? No, they take orders from the president and a few people who serve at his pleasure. We can even blame some other president if that makes you feel better.

What these HR recruiters were doing in this context constitutes public relations. If they do not have answers to these questions, perhaps they should not be placed in a position in which they might have to answer them. If the NSA does not want to field uncomfortable questions, perhaps they should terminate their wholesale lawbreaking operation.

HR recruiters are a potential employee's first contact with a company and ought to be able to answer any reasonable questions a potential employee might have. "Who does your agency consider an adversary," is a valid question to ask of an agency that's trying to recruit you. It's akin to asking a business, "Who do you consider a potential customer?"

It's a core function of an organization's representatives to have answers to these simple questions and understand the organization's purpose. Even without the current situation the NSA is in, this sort of thing is something that a potential recruit may be curious about. I'm surprised they didn't have an answer ready for it.

If some government organization tries to sell someone with anything like a sense of right & wrong, and/or simply not a damned sociopath, on joining them in targeting individuals and groups, naturally the first question should be "Exactly what type and nature of individuals and groups?"

If you expect that answer from them your expectations should probably be adjusted.

Wrong. They need to be able to answer the questions. They work for the people and must be accountable. Secret courts and secret rulings on secret laws are in no way Constitutional, and are gross violations of everyone's civil rights.

They have access now to technology and information systems Orwell could never have dreamed of. Such power must be tightly chained and the ability to abuse it eliminated. Turn the giant NSA data storage centers over to public scientific research use or something similarly open and benign. If it can be abused, it will be abused. It is human nature.

Government power must be as distributed and as localized as possible to avoid corruption and suborning, for the same reasons that it's much easier to compromise a network consisting of a central server and terminals than it is a network of autonomous machines, each with their own defenses.

In a way, the Founding Fathers were genius network programmers, as the US Constitution is the "program" for the system known as "government".

Question, besides the American public who does the NSA consider as adversaries. I want an answer to that. Seems like the journalist asked a pertinent question that her viewers/readers are curious about.

She was unprofessional as a journalist and came off as immature as well. These people weren't squirming, they were just answering this bull dog's questions as best they could without getting fired in the process. She was clearly interested in painting them in a negative light so I would not attribute journalist credentials to her in this exchange. They did clearly state that policy makers hand down the requirements of their job--in other words the NSA doesn't choose targets the politicians do. End of story really. She seems angry.

I can't comment on this apart from the partial transcript, because the blog is down. But from what i read, it was perfectly acceptable behaviour from a journalist. Perhaps you are not familiar with journalists who ask hard, uncomfortable questions to someone's face. If you are in the US, you are probably used to interviews where the questions are vetted beforehand, and "questioning" is done in the absence of the questioned in clearly biased opinion broadcasts. Professional journalism in a functioning democracy consists of asking people hard questions to their face, and either have them answer them fully or partially, make a promise to give an answer if they don't know, or obviously refuse to answer them. An important part of that sentence is the bit allowing them to answer the questions; "opinion" televeision does not allow that. The only time I saw an american president being asked hard unscheduled questions in a live interview, it was a foreign journalist who later received death threats for being "rude" enough to ask the president a question he had not agreed beforehand was an acceptable one for him to answer. And you call yourselves the land of the free.

Perhaps you are not familiar with journalists who ask hard, uncomfortable questions to someone's face. If you are in the US, you are probably used to interviews where the questions are vetted beforehand, and "questioning" is done in the absence of the questioned in clearly biased opinion broadcasts. Professional journalism in a functioning democracy consists of asking people hard questions to their face, and either have them answer them fully or partially, make a promise to give an answer if they don't know, or obviously refuse to answer them. An important part of that sentence is the bit allowing them to answer the questions; "opinion" televeision does not allow that. The only time I saw an american president being asked hard unscheduled questions in a live interview, it was a foreign journalist who later received death threats for being "rude" enough to ask the president a question he had not agreed beforehand was an acceptable one for him to answer. And you call yourselves the land of the free.

THE PRESIDENT:... Look, Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, against the neighborhood. He was a brutal dictator who posed a threat -- such a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr. Saddam Hussein --

Q Indeed, Mr. President, but you didn't find the weapons of mass destruction.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. Let me finish. May I finish?

He said -- the United Nations said, disarm or face serious consequences. That's what the United Nations said. And guess what? He didn't disarm. He didn't disclose his arms. And, therefore, he faced serious consequences. But we have found a capacity for him to make a weapon. See, he had the capacity to make weapons. He was dangerous. And no one can argue that the world is better off with Saddam -- if Saddam Hussein were in power.

Q But, Mr. President, the world is a more dangerous place today. I don't know whether you can see that or not.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say that?

Q There are terrorist bombings every single day. It's now a daily event. It wasn't like that two years ago.http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html Transcript of Interview-White House

In defense of American journalism, I must point out that there are also American journalists who have asked tough questions of American presidents (although not too many):

AMY GOODMAN: You’re calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that they are — at this point feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference?

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: There’s not a shred of evidence to support that. That’s what I would say. It’s true that both parties have wealthy supporters. But let me offer you — let me just give you the differences. Let’s look at economic policy. First of all, if you look at the last eight years, look where America was eight years ago, and look where it is today. We have the strongest economy in history. And for the first time in 30 years, the incomes of average people and lower-income working people have gone up 15 percent after inflation. The lowest minority unemployment ever recorded, the highest minority home ownership, the highest minority business ownership in history — that’s our record....

AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, since it’s rare to get you on the phone, let me ask you another question. And that is, what is your position on granting Leonard Peltier, the Native American activist, executive clemency?

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I don’t — I don’t have a position I can announce yet....

One truly astonishing thing is the White House complained to the Irish embassy about that interview. It's as if somebody dared to insult a King and it really confirms the stupid feudal mindset that is supposed to be the opposite of everything the USA stands for.He really did want to get treated like Royalty.

Yes, the Bush White House told Carole Coleman that now she wasn't going to get the interview with Laura Bush that they had been hinting at.

The Clinton White House told Amy Goodman that now they would never answer her phone calls again. (Her response was something like, "OK.")

The reason these interviews turned out this way was that, besides being smart reporters, they didn't cover the White House regularly. For the reporters who do cover it regularly, there's a quid pro quo that they won't ask tough questions and in exchange they'll get regular access to the political celebrities. It's important for a reporter on the beat to get lots of interviews with the big shots, even if they don't say anything. That's what their editors want. If they asked tough questions, and the White House cut them off, they wouldn't be able to do talking head interviews with the president and first lady any more (and they might have to find other sources and cover real news, but that wouldn't occur to them).

There's a similar quid pro quo between reporters who cover the police beats and the cops. The reporters don't talk about brutality and corruption, and in exchange they get a steady stream of crime stories.

It's a lot easier to write regular stories, or at least turn out a lot of words, if you cooperate with the people you're covering.

But for an independent reporter there's no reason to play that game.

There's an old saw in journalism that news is something that the people in power don't want to get out.

I as a reader don't need any of the self-agrandizing bullshit that politicians spout on the PBS Newshour, for example. I want to know what my political leaders are doing to serve or harm my interests, say in health care, or going to war. If PBS won't do that for me, I'll go somewhere else.

There are reporters who cover politics who don't need the President or White House at all. There are lots of smart people to interview who understand the issues and tell the truth more than most politicians, and are happy to talk to reporters. Look at the people Amy Goodman interviews on DemocracyNow.

You could probably write a better story by interviewing the people who are demonstrating in front of the White House than by interviewing the president.

Your perspective is that of an adult who is able to deal with reality. Those complaining that it's somehow "not nice" to expect real answers from people who are our servants and routinely act against our interests have some serious growing up to do. If everything the NSA did were acceptable and beneficial, these wouldn't be "uncomfortable" questions. It just can't be that hard to understand.

We're being transformed into a nation of pussies who can't deal with reality unless it's brought down to a child's emotional level, dumbed down to about a 5th-grade reading level (not a joke - the media targets this), condensed into 10-second sound bites to suit the prevailing attention span, spoon-fed, and guaranteed never to offend the most irrational and overreactive among us.

You can blame Wall Street, megacorps, sociopaths in government, and the like, but those are opportunists who saw a weakness and ruthlessly exploited it. The truth is, the nation is losing its prosperity because it is no longer worthy of it. For all the people who like to put on a big show this time of year concerning how fashionably patriotic they are, so few are actually looking for the root of our problems.

You're never going to make it at that rate. Mother Theresa has been criticized [wikipedia.org] for some time. Perhaps most amusingly by Penn and Teller on their BS show [youtu.be] where she is described as a fraud, a fanatic and a fundamentalist, corrupt, nasty, cynical and cruel by Christopher Hitchens.

There's a big difference between being an atheist, and being an atheist who feels compelled to ridicule those who aren't. In some ways Hitchens may actually hurt his own case by preaching to the choir. Penn and Teller I'm not sure, because their audience is probably behind them and their goal is to entertain instead of to change minds.

Normally do not comment on or make fun of grammar mistakes but "Escape Goats"?? LOL. Thanks, you made my afternoon.

Laugh if you must, but the original "scapegoat" really did escape (although the word has no lineage to the word escape). There were two goats involved, and the scapegoat definitely got the better end of the deal.
From Leviticus 16:
7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat.[b] 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrific

And, given Americans tried that 'vote the bums out!' thing when they elected a Republican Congress and Democrat President and it was clearly a dismal failure, how do you think that doing it again would be any different?

They should really read up on the US media, which knows that most stories aren't worth following after a week and no story, no matter how important, is worth more than two weeks' attention, unless, and only unless it involves a court trial, violence (preferably interracial) and systematically-reinforced emotion.

Our leaders, the smartest of the smart, have judged this formula to be good for society.